DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention Group II, claims 44, 49-50 and 56, in the reply filed on 11/10/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-9, 13-14, 17, 24, 28, 31 and 42 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention Group I, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/10/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 50 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 50 recites “wherein the one or more phosphorus-containing organic acids have molecular weights of greater than or about 125 g/mol and less than or about 600 g/mol”. The claimed molecular weight range is not clearly defined because the upper and lower limits are defined both by “greater than/less than” and “about”, which make the upper and lower limits of the claimed molecular weight range vague and indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sebralla et al. US 2012/0070674(Sebralla).
Sebralla teaches a metal product, such as wheels made of an aluminum alloy, comprising a surface with a self-assembled monolayer(abstract[0020]), formed by applying an aqueous composition comprising organic phosphonic acid with hydroxyl and/or amino functional groups([0082], claim 27), such as 1,8-octanediphosphonic acid and 1-phosphonic acid-8-aminooctane, etc.[0083-0099, 0134-0143].
Regarding claim 44, the aluminum wheels of Sebralla reads on the claimed pretreated metal product. Examples of the functionalized organic phosphonic acids disclosed by Sebralla, such as 1,8-octanediphosphonic acid(MW 274.19g/mol) and 1-phosphonic acid-8-aminooctane(MW:209.22g/mol) have molecular weights that fall within the claimed less than 1000g/mol.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 49-50 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Sebralla.
The teachings of Sebralla are discussed in section 7 above.
Regarding claim 49, Sebralla further teaches at least one organic phosphonic acid can be used[0082-102], which encompasses the claimed two or more organic phosphonic acids. Therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 50, Examples of the functionalized organic phosphonic acids disclosed by Sebralla, such as 1,8-octanediphosphonic acid(MW 274.19g/mol) and 1-phosphonic acid-8-aminooctane(MW:209.22g/mol) have molecular weights that fall withinthe claimed greater than or about 125g/mol and less than or about 600g/mol.
Claim(s) 56 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sebralla and further in view of Choi et al. US 2020/0248052 A1 (Choi) or BR102017005049 (BR049).
The teachings of Sebralla are discussed in sections 7 and 9 above.
Regarding claim 56, Sebralla further teaches that the aluminum alloy is used for the production of wheels in automotive construction[0111].
However, Sebralla does not explicitly teach the claimed second product positioned adjacent to the aluminum alloy product and the claimed joining material providing a bond between the aluminum alloy product and the second product.
Choi teaches a method of manufacturing a nonpneumatic tire, a tread made of a polyurethane material and an aluminum alloy wheel is chemically bonded by using an adhesive[0009].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have applied the aluminum alloy wheel of Sebralla into the construction of a nonpneumatic tire of Choi with expected success. The polyurethane tread as taught by Sebralla in view of Choi reads on the claimed second product and the adhesive as taught by Sebralla in view of Choi reads on the claimed joining material.
Alternatively, BR049 teaches a device for adapting beadlock kit on aluminum alloy wheels, wherein the beadlock kit (comprising two rings) is fixed to the aluminum alloy wheels by screws and a sealing rubber(abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have adapted the beadlock kit as taught by BR049 to the Al alloy wheel of Sebralla in order to prevent the Al alloy wheel from detaching from the rim in off-road use as taught by BR049(abstract0. In this case, the beadlock kit as taught by Sebralla in view of BR049 reads on the claimed second product. The screws and/or the sealing rubber as taught by Sebralla in view of BR049 read on the claimed joining material.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LOIS L ZHENG whose telephone number is (571)272-1248. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:15-4:45.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Keith Hendricks can be reached at 571-272-1401. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
LOIS ZHENG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1733
/LOIS L ZHENG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733